alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17740]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2845]


The Bureau of Personnel, Recruitment Office; Agency Information 
Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Application 
for Federal Employment (DS-1950).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. 
The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in 
the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. This process is 
conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The following summarizes the information collection proposal 
submitted to OMB:
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Originating Office: Bureau of Personnel, Recruitment Office.
    Title of Information Collection: Application for Federal 
Employment.
    Frequency: Yearly.
    Form Number: DS-1950.
    Respondents: Used by individuals to apply for certain excepted 
positions at the Department of State.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,000.
    Average Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Total Estimated Burden: 12,500 hours.
    Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to--
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the agency functions.
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection.
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected.
    <bullet> Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comments regarding the collection listed in this notice or requests for 
copies of the proposed collection and supporting documents should be 
directed to Charles S. Cunningham, Directives Management Branch, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-0596.

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Fernando Burbano,
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17740 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-15-M
1 

### Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Schaffner, Karen S. Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:35 PM To: 'Textor, Marise L.'; Bogany, Carolyn Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RTR MVL: info for Emission_Unit 01 & 02 (far left dot)

Hi Marise and Carolyn:

From the lat/long file that TPC sent on Dec 17, it looks like the emission point on the far left of th e map page is actually 2 emission points. As I look on the map, there are no tanks shown; the re is a pile, perhaps a storage pile of some sort, and
trailers for semis. Here is the info from the 2005 NEI:

Emission_Unit_ID 01; Process_ID 01; Emission_Releas e_Point_ID 01; and the SCC is 39999999 (Defined as “Industrial Processes, Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries, Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, See Comment **” ); with Lat 29.697958 and Long -95.262953. There is one HAP sh own as emitted from this point: Styrene at 0.022 t py.

Emission_Unit_ID 02; Process_ID 02; Emission_Releas e_Point_ID 02; and the SCC is 39999999 (Defined as “Industrial Processes, Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries, Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, See Comment **” ); with Lat 29.697958 and Long -95.262953. There are two HAP s hown as emitted from this point: Chromium at 0.011 55 tpy and Styrene at 0.0005 tpy.

Also, there is no MACT code shown for these points (not HON, not Boilers, not MVL). I have assumed th at this is not a MACT process, so have left as is. Please confirm.

Let me know if you have any questions. I can check on other things and try to help figure things out if something could be better clarified. Thanks, Karen

Karen Schaffner Air Quality Engineering Group RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311) Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 phone: (919) 316 3740 fax: (919) 541 7155
£-Cigarette Use Among Youth and 


Young Adults 


A Report ofthe Surgeon General 


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
#### *In re Dependency of G.G., et al.,*

No. 91456-7.

Motion for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 71241-1-1, 71242-0-1 and 71243-8-1, February 9, 2015, 185 Wn. App. 813. *Denied*October 6, 2015 (Madsen, C.J., dissenting).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6267

SCOTT ETHAN KAHL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVIS MCLAUGHLIN, Deputy; DICK SANDERS,

Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (00-165-

AMD)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Ethan Kahl, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court's order is dated January 28,

2000, the district court's records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on February 1, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the

order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Ethan Kahl appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Kahl v. McLaughlin, No. 00-165-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 1,

2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2732 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require warning labels for 

prescription opioids, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. STANTON (for himself and Mr. MCADAMS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require warning 

labels for prescription opioids, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lessening Addiction 

5 By Enhancing Labeling Opioids Act of 2019’’ or the 

6 ‘‘LABEL Opioids Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 305(c) of the Controlled 

9 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 825(c)) is amended— 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2732 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) The label of any container or package containing 

5 an opioid or opiate listed in schedule II, III, IV, or V shall, 

6 when dispensed (other than administered) to or for a pa7 tient, contain a clear, concise warning, in a manner speci8 fied by the Secretary by regulation, that the opioids or 

9 opiates dispensed can cause dependence, addiction, and 

10 overdose.’’. 

11 (b) REGULATIONS.— 

12 (1) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Health 

13 and Human Services shall prescribe regulations 

14 under section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

15 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)) to implement 

16 the amendment made by subsection (a) and such 

17 regulations shall be effective not later than 2 years 

18 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (2) INTERIM RULES.—The Secretary of Health 

20 and Human Services may issue the regulations re21 quired under paragraph (1) by interim rule to the 

22 extent necessary to comply with the timing require23 ment in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed April 4 , 201 3



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 12

- 00284

- C R

__________ LENDON M. DUKE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106 th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No . 12

- 7173

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Lendon M. Duke entered an open plea of guilty to four cou nts of indecency with a child. After accepting appellant’s plea of guilty and receiving evidence pertaining to punishment, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. We dism iss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the app eal is frivolous. Counsel has2 provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v.
State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. S tate , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and supporting
brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for app eal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252
S.W.3d 403 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently re

viewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a pe tition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is han ded down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for disc retionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
April 4 , 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01-19-00742-CV

Trial court case number: 17-CV-0910

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

Relator has filed a motion to stay the trial court proceedings pending resolution of 

its petition for writ of mandamus. The motion is granted. The proceedings in Katherine 

Hunter v. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-0910, in the 10

th District Court 

of Galveston County, Texas, are stayed. The stay is effective until disposition of relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus or further order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 3, 2019
Table 10. Incremental Costs from 2011 Final Rule to 2012 Reconsideration Final Rul

Incremental MACT Floor Control, Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Costs

A. Compliance by additional control only

Energy recovery unit - Liquid/Gas 0 -$526,381 -$218,879

Energy recovery unit - Solids -8 -$128,371,421 -$70,253,729

Incinerator 1

$1,440,644 $339,811

Small, remote 14

$11,401,648 $3,228,022

Waste-burning kiln 11

$299,948,355 $109,065,849

$183,892,845 $42,161,073

B. Compliance or Most Inexpensive Disposal Alternative

Subcategory

Inventory

Change 

(# of Units)

Capital Costs 

(2008$)

Annualized Costs 

(2008$)

Energy recovery unit - Liquid/Gas 0 -$526,381 -$218,879

Energy recovery unit - Solids -8 -$128,371,421 -$70,253,729

Incinerator 1 $0 -$17,785

Small, remote 14 $1,037,688 $1,784,762

Waste-burning kiln 11 $299,948,355 $109,065,849

$172,088,241 $40,360,218

Subcategory

Inventory

Change 

(# of Units)

Capital Costs 

(2008$)

Annualized Costs 

(2008$)
012 Reconsideration Final Rule

C. Incremental Cost Breakdown by Reason for Change

Capital Costs 

(2008$)

Annualized 

Costs (2008$)

Capital Costs 

(2008$)

Annualized 

Costs (2008$)

Energy recovery unit - Liquid/Gas -$526,381 -$218,879 $0 $0

Energy recovery unit - Solids -$57,646,097 -$43,605,371 -$70,725,324 -$26,648,357

Incinerator

$165,857 $60,845 $1,274,788 $278,966

Small, remote

-$1,768,962 -$497,617 $13,170,610 $3,725,638

Waste-burning kiln

$101,809,948 $44,031,686 $198,138,408 $65,034,162

$42,034,365 -$229,336 $141,858,481 $42,390,409

Subcategory

Regulatory or Data Changes Inventory change
More stingent CO limit, but lower baseline determined for WAEmeraldKalama U-2, so no 

longer requires CO oxidation catalyst

8 units cut from inventory; for remaining 22 units: New ACI algorithm (higher TCI, lower 

TAC), Added O2 Monitoring, 

1 unit added to inventory; more stringent CO limit (CO Span Adjustment method) - 

TXSterlingChemTexasCity needs afterburner retrofit

2 units cut from inventory; 16 units added to inventory; CO Span Adjustment method 

revision; less stringent limits for Cd, CO, HCl, PM, and D/F.

For original 12 units: 9 additional wet scrubbers, 1 wet scrubber removal, 4 new ACI, 2 

new RTO, 1 RTO removal, 2 fabric filter improvements; 11 new units

Notes
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6330
HELEN FRANCES TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-960-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helen Frances Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Taylor v. Angelone , No. CA-95-960-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 1996 & Feb. 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-7832.

#### John Burton, Petitioner v. Spokane Police Department, et al.

562 U.S. 1205, 131 S. Ct. 1054,

178 L. Ed. 2d 872,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 964.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 671.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18512]



[[Page 37553]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-337-000]


MIGC, Inc. Notice of Proposed Changes In FERC Gas Tariff

July 7, 1998
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998 MIGC, Inc. (MIGC), tendered for 
filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, 
Second Revised Sheet No. 6 with a proposed effective date of August 1, 
1998.
    MIGC states that the purpose of the filing is to revise and update 
the fuel retention and loss percentage factors (FL&U factors) set forth 
in its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 in accordance with 
the requirement of Section 25 of said tariff.
    MIGC states that copies of its filing are being mailed to its 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18512 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
WHAT TO DO WHENINJURED AT WORK?

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

INJURY COMPENSATION

https://www.dla.mil/Careers/Employees/Benefits/Injury-Compensation/
(Exhibit 23)






                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Ennis Business Forms, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (numbers: 2-81124, 333-58963, 333-44624,
333-38100) of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. of our
reports dated April 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of February 28, 2001 and February 29, 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows and related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the
three-year period ended February 28, 2001, which reports appear
in or are incorporated by reference in the 2001 annual report
on Form 10-K of Ennis Business Forms, Inc.





                                   /s/ KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 23, 2001
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of DigitalTown, Inc. (the
*“Company”*), on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the *“Report”*), I, Richard
      A. Pomije, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
      Section 135)), that to my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.







Dated:  October
      15, 2007





/s/
      Richard A.
      Pomije


Richard
      A. Pomije


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer



















































---
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tiger Telematics,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial officer of the Company
hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: 1) the
Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



/S/ Michael W. Carrender
------------------------
Michael W. Carrender,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

June 3, 2005
#### *Didlake et al., Petitioners, v. Dep’t of Licensing, Respondent,*

No. 91606-3.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71633-6-1, March 16, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 417. *Denied*October 2, 2015.